Monotheism/beatific Vision

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1312110' date='Jul 4 2007, 04:52 AM']No. This is the central point at issue in our discussion.

Is it possible to have a theological dialogue with a religion that is inherently inimical to the Christian faith? No, I do not believe that it is, and the irenic comments made by the Magisterium over the course of the last forty years ultimately confuse both Catholics and Muslims. Moreover, can a religion that openly denies the divinity of Christ and the dogma of the Trinity be a vehicle for worship of the true God? No, I do believe that this is possible. In other words, I refuse to embrace theological indifferentism.

God bless,
Todd[/quote]
On the one hand I firmly embrace [i]Dominus Iesus[/i] and understand Vatican II in light of this document (and other clarifying documents), whilst at the same time I don't detect any hints of theological indifferentism in my perspective on world religions. For someone to insist that this perspective is a manifestation of indifferentism suggests two major possibilities to my mind: 1. I am deluded; 2. my understanding is misunderstood and/or has not been stated with clarity.

[Apotheoun]

Let me put it this way: from an Eastern Christian perspective the Western Church tries to say too much about salvation outside the Church. Moreover, the entire framework of modern Catholic teaching on Islam (and other non-Christian religions for that matter) is speculative in the extreme, and ultimately pointless, since none of it is a part of divine revelation, and as such it is beyond the scope of Magisterial authority to make a definitive pronouncement.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1312112' date='Jul 4 2007, 04:56 AM']They are strict technical terms, as St. John Damascene, St. Theordore Studite, and the Second Council of Nicaea taught.[/quote]
No, not the English words; and not even the canonized words if used in a context that is not proper to such things. I can speak of persons and essences outside the context of the Trinitarian Mystery without holding myself to the rigours of dogmatic technicalities.
In Latin theology it is [i]latria [/i]that designates the sense of worship that is proper to God alone. The Latin text of Lumen Gentium does not use this term but rather uses the more general term which can, in the weakest sense, simply mean that they pray to God ([i]adorant[/i]). Not sure if this is any consolation, but one cannot accuse Vatican II of applying technical terms for the true worship of God to Islam. On the downside I do believe that this is the Latin term used in the Vulgate when Christ speaks of worshipping in spirit and truth, but it would still be a stretch to attach all the baggage that you would like to upon the Lumen Gentium statement, especially in light of the full context and clarifications surrounding that issue.

Rather than condemning Lumen Gentium to the infamy of heresy, the most your criticisms do is point out that these statements cannot be understood in x, y, z heretical way, which I don't think many sane people do anyway.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1312120' date='Jul 4 2007, 04:19 AM']No, not the English words; and not even the canonized words if used in a context that is not proper to such things. I can speak of persons and essences outside the context of the Trinitarian Mystery without holding myself to the rigours of dogmatic technicalities.
In Latin theology it is latria that designates the sense of worship that is proper to God alone. The Latin text of Lumen Gentium does not use this term but rather uses the more general term which can, in the weakest sense, simply mean prayer. Not sure if this is any consolation, but one cannot accuse Vatican II of applying technical terms for the true worship of God to Islam.[/quote]
[i]Adore[/i] is the technical word used in English to indicate worship of Almighty God alone, and sadly that is the word that Vatican II used when describing Muslim "worship."

Vatican II promotes a position that is innovative and actually contrary to the constant tradition of the Church.

Nevertheless, the statements made by the Bishops at Vatican II are not definitive, and -- as a consequence -- no Catholic is required to accept them as an accurate representation of the Catholic position.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1312115' date='Jul 4 2007, 05:00 AM']Let me put it this way: from an Eastern Christian perspective the Western Church tries to say too much about salvation outside the Church. Moreover, the entire framework of modern Catholic teaching on Islam (and other non-Christian religions for that matter) is speculative in the extreme, and ultimately pointless, since none of it is a part of divine revelation, and as such it is beyond the scope of Magisterial authority to make a definitive pronouncement.[/quote]
I know many Roman Catholics who would agree with you (no doubt most traddies), and I would agree to the extent that further clarification is needed and perhaps some less ambiguously inclusive statements. A full blown ecumenical (meaning Catholic-Orthodox not Protestant) statement on the matter would be most splendid.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1312122' date='Jul 4 2007, 04:24 AM']I know many Roman Catholics who would agree with you (no doubt most traddies), and I would agree to the extent that further clarification is needed and perhaps some less ambiguously inclusive statements. A full blown ecumenical (meaning Catholic-Orthodox not Protestant) statement on the matter would be most splendid.[/quote]
It is simply impossible for the Magisterium to say, in a definitive manner, anything positive about Islam.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1312121' date='Jul 4 2007, 05:24 AM']Adore is the technical word used in English to indicate worship of Almighty God alone, and sadly that is the word that Vatican II used when describing Muslim "worship."

Vatican II promotes a position that is innovative and actually contrary to the constant tradition of the Church.[/quote]
Rather than continuing the semantic dispute (I really don't know what the deal is with the word "adore") I will just say that the only real innovation is you interpretation of Lumen Gentium apart from the tradition and definitive teachings of the Church. I do not think it is utterly impossible to reconcile these sentiments with tradition and I believe that this is in fact the only framework in which such things can be properly understood. I will again indicate [i]Dominus Iesus[/i] as my favorite source of clarification on this matter. In light of this your heretical exegesis is simply foreign to the authentic understanding of the Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1312124' date='Jul 4 2007, 04:29 AM']Rather than continuing the semantic dispute (I really don't know what the deal is with the word "adore") I will just say that the only real innovation is you interpretation of Lumen Gentium apart from the tradition and definitive teachings of the Church. I do not think it is utterly impossible to reconcile these sentiments with tradition and I believe that this is in fact the only framework in which such things can be properly understood. I will again indicate [i]Dominus Iesus[/i] as my favorite source of clarification on this matter. In light of this your heretical exegesis is simply foreign to the authentic understanding of the Church.[/quote]
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I reject the non-definitive statements made by the Bishops at Vatican II on Islam, because they are contrary to the universal Tradition of the Church.

God bless,
Todd

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1312123' date='Jul 4 2007, 05:27 AM']It is simply impossible for the Magisterium to say, in a definitive manner, anything positive about Islam.[/quote]
On the level of dogma perhaps, but Church history is full of statements and positions on matters that don't pertain to Catholic faith and morals. The Church is in the world and must act in that world. You may be offended by the "spirit of Vatican II", but it is the stance and mind of the Church in the face of the situations of the modern world and there is a certain religious assent that is owed by the faithful even in matters that are not [i]ex cathedra[/i] teachings. I'm not saying that Catholics must assent to heretical notions about Islam, but as I was saying, I don't believe that this was anyone's intent. A certain cardinal addressed a mob of Muslims a couple years ago and pretty much spelled out the fact that there is no real "dialogue" between Islam and Christianity when it comes to doctrine. Christianity exists to convert the whole world to Christ; Islam exists to establish Islamic dominion throughout the world. We can try to coexist peacefully, but the Cardinal made clear that no indifferentist hand holding is really possible without effectively abandoning our religions. The Church has not abandoned the Faith and never will.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1312125' date='Jul 4 2007, 05:32 AM']I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I reject the non-definitive statements made by the Bishops at Vatican II on Islam, because they are contrary to the universal Tradition of the Church.

God bless,
Todd[/quote]
*takes a respectful bow* (Japanese style)

Perhaps we can pick up where we left off some other time. I'm quite tired and suspect that my responses were not as lucid as they may otherwise have been. My apologies for any stupidity or offense that may have come from my keyboard.

God bless you my friend.

P.S. I replied before I saw your last post so feel free to put in the last word if you see a need to respond to said post.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1312126' date='Jul 4 2007, 04:37 AM']On the level of dogma perhaps, but Church history is full of statements and positions on matters that don't pertain to Catholic faith and morals.[/quote]
Islam does not fall under either faith or morals. Thus, the Magisterium cannot issue a positive statement about Islam, but it certainly can issue a negative appraisal of that false religion based upon the Islamic denial of the divinity of Christ and the dogma of the Holy Trinity. But -- of course -- a specific declaration on those issues in connection with Islam is not really necessary, since those doctrinal positions have already been condemned definitively by the Church during the first millennium.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1312127' date='Jul 4 2007, 04:39 AM']P.S. I replied before I saw your last post so feel free to put in the last word if you see a need to respond to said post.[/quote]
Do not worry about it. We are not likely to ever agree on this topic.

God bless,
Todd

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1312130' date='Jul 4 2007, 05:44 AM']Do not worry about it. We are not likely to ever agree on this topic.

God bless,
Todd[/quote]

["Kyrie eleison"]

Era was so gracious to post this and it seems to go hand in hand with what Paul states in Romans 2:5-11.

Pope John Paul II also addresses this in "Redemptoris Missio":



The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that "this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God."


Paul sums it up quite nicely. God shows no partiality.

Romans:2:5-11:

But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.[b] For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.[/b] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. [b]For God shows no partiality. [/b]

and again..

Even if we believe and have all the faith in the father the son and the holy spirit but have not love, we are nothing.

"If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing" (1Cor.13:1-3)

Edited July 4, 2007 by "Kyrie eleison"

[mortify]

Interesting discussion.

Apotheon seems to be suggesting that since the Fathers at Vat II said Muslims "adore the One God" they mean to say that their worship is acceptable to God. I personally never understood the statement to suggest that, I agree with LD that what the Fathers meant is that their direction of worship is geared towards the One True God, not that there worship is acceptable. Rejecting the Trinity prevents Muslims from offering acceptable worship to the Father, it does not mean they can't offer an [i]attempt of worship[/i] geared towards the Father.

Unfortunately the new Catechism is rather ambiguous on these issues, and doesn't explicitly say Islam is error, but it does say that the "Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved." and "In there religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them" it then goes on to quote that famous passages in Romans, concerning the culpability that falls on pagans for rejecting God since God is in some way apparent through His creation:

[quote]18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, [color="#FF0000"]19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.[/color] 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

[color="#FF0000"]21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him[/color], but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became geniuses 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.[/quote]

Edited July 4, 2007 by mortify

[mortify]

Btw, why do people get upset over using the phrase "neocath" but not "radtrad," or "traddie"?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='mortify' post='1312262' date='Jul 4 2007, 09:45 AM']Apotheon seems to be suggesting that since the Fathers at Vat II said Muslims "adore the One God" they mean to say that their worship is acceptable to God.[/quote]
I disagree with this comment, because there is no such thing as an "abstract" true God. Islam, unlike other non-Christian religions, is founded upon the explicit denial of the dogma of the Trinity. This open rejection of the tri-hypostatic nature of God has been definitively (i.e., infallibly) condemned by the Church as contrary to the truth, and -- as a consequence -- it is not possible to prescind from this fundamental error of the Islamic religion in order to argue that Muslims believe in some kind of intellectually abstract and naturally understood "one God."

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - Once again, no Catholic is required to accept the statements issued by the Bishops at Vatican II on Islam, because the Magisterium does not possess the authority to make a positive definitive (i.e., binding) pronouncement on Islamic "doctrinal" belief.

[mortify]

[quote]This open rejection of the tri-hypostatic nature of God has been definitively (i.e., infallibly) condemned by the Church as contrary to the truth, and -- as a consequence -- it is not possible to prescind from this fundamental error of the Islamic religion in order to argue that they believe in some kind of intellectually abstract and naturally understood "one God."[/quote]

The Quranic objections against Christianity are due to misunderstanding of our theology. The Quran says for example, "They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah." (5:73) Is that what we believe? That there are three gods? Clearly the author of the verse does not understand the tri-hypostatic nature of God, and so can't reject it.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that Muslims give thanks and glory to the Creator whom they don't know perfectly, and can't offer acceptable forms of worship. How else do you understand the passage in Romans?

Edited July 4, 2007 by mortify

[Apotheoun]

Arian objections to the Trinity were based upon a misunderstanding too, but the Church Fathers would never have said that an Arian adores the one true God. This can be said about Nestorian objections to the incarnation as well, but the Fathers of the Church would never say that a Nestorian worships the one true God.

The statements issued by the Bishops at Vatican II have no real theological content, and no Catholic is required to accept the judgment of the Bishops on an issue that is beyond their competence.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='mortify' post='1312420' date='Jul 4 2007, 11:43 AM']It's perfectly reasonable to say that Muslims give thanks and glory to the Creator whom they don't know perfectly, and can't offer acceptable forms of worship. How else do you understand the passage in Romans?[/quote]
I disagree, and my disagreement is based upon my studies of Islamic theology (e.g., the writings of Al-Ashari, Ahmed ibn Hanbal, and Al-Ghazali). The Islamic "god" is not the true God revealed in Sacred Scripture. Sadly, Muslims believe in a false deity created by Mohammad, and so it is not possible to argue from some kind of "naturalistic" abstraction to the "god" of Islam.